Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote.
John Larkin wrote:

Some cultures worship death. Yuk.

maybe death is a better alternative in those
cultures?

And which cultures would those be, that worship death?

Christianity.

Very good point. As I don't practice any religion I'd nearly forgotten
that.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:04:04 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or
human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest
people in the world.

And the USA'a *IS* ?????

Graham

I think the theory is that a democratic world, with free people and
free trade, will be better for everybody, us included. I've heard lots
worse theories.

What's your version of utopia?

John

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
JoeBloe wrote:

Why don't we ask someone like Steven Biko... Oh... that's right...
we can't. You bastards murdered him.

Absolutely *nothing* to do with Britain, the Empire or whatever.

Have you never heard of the RSA ? Republic of South Africa. An
independent
country.

Especially as it was an different European country which colonised most
of
South Africa. You can blame Britain for the first Concentration Camps
though.

They were somewhat different to the German variety though.

Well less gas and less Jews, more Boers though...

The problem is, some people in this debate think that saying "The Brits did
[INSERT HISTORY SNIP]" so you cant criticise the US for doing it. This is
madness. It is like going to court for assault and saying "you cant jail me
that guy over there beat some one up fifty years ago."

Quite so, although I'll happily compare UK internment of foreign aliens during
WW2 with what the Americans did with their Japanese.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:

and what part did the UK play in this? was it something
to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing
on our shores?

Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an
English town?

Graham

we were just being nice to you, so that we could make our big move!

Yeah, New York, Washington, New Jersey, New Bedford, Salisbury, Richmond,
Rockingham, Southport, Fairfax, York, Lancaster, Newark, Hempstead,
Southampton, Bristol, Hartford, Warwick, Worcester (etc) weren't enough.
You
had to name Boston "Boston" as well...

St Albans even !

Must have been scraping the barrel there....

That's where I live you see.

There are several St Alabanses in the USA.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or
human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest
people in the world.

And the USA'a *IS* ?????

Graham

I think the theory is that a democratic world, with free people and
free trade, will be better for everybody, us included. I've heard lots
worse theories.

What's your version of utopia?

Ceertainly one where you don't go to war to change ppls minds.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533EAF3.B6A3CEBA@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
JoeBloe wrote:

Why don't we ask someone like Steven Biko... Oh... that's
right...
we can't. You bastards murdered him.

Absolutely *nothing* to do with Britain, the Empire or whatever.

Have you never heard of the RSA ? Republic of South Africa. An
independent
country.

Especially as it was an different European country which colonised
most
of
South Africa. You can blame Britain for the first Concentration Camps
though.

They were somewhat different to the German variety though.

Well less gas and less Jews, more Boers though...

The problem is, some people in this debate think that saying "The Brits
did
[INSERT HISTORY SNIP]" so you cant criticise the US for doing it. This is
madness. It is like going to court for assault and saying "you cant jail
me
that guy over there beat some one up fifty years ago."

Quite so, although I'll happily compare UK internment of foreign aliens
during
WW2 with what the Americans did with their Japanese.

True. London house did see some naughty goings on though, although IIRC they
were all captured not interned.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:3cq7j2les0tq6s02ukal85hu2020j11r78@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:04:04 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or
human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest
people in the world.

And the USA'a *IS* ?????

Graham

I think the theory is that a democratic world, with free people and
free trade, will be better for everybody, us included. I've heard lots
worse theories.

So, this theory will be enforced upon people whether they want it or not?

What's your version of utopia?

Choice.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533EB3D.33F5EF66@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:

and what part did the UK play in this? was it something
to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing
on our shores?

Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an
English town?

Graham

we were just being nice to you, so that we could make our big
move!

Yeah, New York, Washington, New Jersey, New Bedford, Salisbury,
Richmond,
Rockingham, Southport, Fairfax, York, Lancaster, Newark, Hempstead,
Southampton, Bristol, Hartford, Warwick, Worcester (etc) weren't
enough.
You
had to name Boston "Boston" as well...

St Albans even !

Must have been scraping the barrel there....

That's where I live you see.

[Shudder]

Poor you.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533E94A.DC727267@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote.
John Larkin wrote:

Some cultures worship death. Yuk.

maybe death is a better alternative in those
cultures?

And which cultures would those be, that worship death?

Christianity.

Very good point. As I don't practice any religion I'd nearly forgotten
that.

Know the Enemy

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:13:29 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:45:22 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Using force to make other nations act in the way America wants them to is,
and should always be, unacceptable. It doesn't matter if America has their
(other nation) best interests at heart.

That is the heart of the issue. If Idi Amin or Pol Pot decides to kill
a few million of "their own" citizens, do they have the soverign right
to do so? Is there any such thing as universal human rights? Does the
government of China "own" Tibet or Taiwan? Do we stand aside from
genocides and starvation because intervention is, for some reason,
"unacceptable"?

So you'd support a war on Zimbabwe ?

If there are universal human rights, and the UN or some other
broad-based coalition believes in them, it seems to me that we cannot
avoid intervention when a madman decides to starve a few million of
his own population. If there are no human rights, then only power
matters, so quit whining about the USA doing whatever it can.

Please take this issue seriously and tell me what you think. I haven't
entirely resolved this myself, but I don't see that Kim has the right
to rule Korea as a god and kill millions, and have a voting seat on
the UN to legitimize him as "head of state." I think *the world*
shouldn't allow this sort of horror.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:46:07 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 06 10:03:33 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <2925j2dlsd2jau4crqchld5e7filit9481@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:51:15 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude
bomb than with a sophisticated bomb.
Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably
fairly
crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may
have
to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York
harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar Caribbean
island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. However,
it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated
fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their own
country.
You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from such
action for it to make sense though.

Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really
wouldn't
be very much in their interests to do this !

If Kim is a crazy as Mao (and he's probably a lot crazier)
I don't think Kim is crazy. I think he has to prove that he
is as big a god as his father. Being on equal footing (IOW
having and wielding nuclear bombs) with the rest of the
world powers is necessary to keep his god image up. We
are dealing with a different kind of religious fanaticsim, I
think.


Anybody who would beat, torture, and starve to death millions of his
own subjects qualifies for my definition of crazy. Your standards may
vary.


What about leaders that beat, torture and kill hundreds of other
country's subjects, and reserve the right to do so to their own
subjects? Given that virtually all experts agree that torture has
almost no value in obtaining useful information or intelligence, its
only use is for revenge or as a deterrent. Is there a line drawn
somewhere saying a little torture is okay?

Anyway, there is a big difference between being evil, ruthless,
sadistic, or otherwise inhumane, and being crazy. I attribute a lot of
the trouble the USA has with dealing with terrorism and other unpleasant
behaviour to a tendency to assume that anyone who doesn't see the USA
and the American way of life as the pinnacle of civilisation as "crazy",
rather than trying to understand their point of view.

The pinnacle of civilization, and I hope we get it some day, is a
universally agreed definition of human rights, and mechanisms that
ensure that everybody gets them. Torture should obviously one of the
things we are protected from.

Sitting and bitching don't get us much progress in that direction.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:21:16 -0700, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Some cultures worship death. Yuk.

John

maybe death is a better alternative in those
cultures?

Only for the ones who prefer it. Most people want to live.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:54:27 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bjOYg.9$GM7.6@newsfe04.lga...
John Larkin wrote:

Some cultures worship death. Yuk.

maybe death is a better alternative in those
cultures?

And which cultures would those be, that worship death?

The ones that crank out suicide bombers.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:10:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Evangelicals in the US account for some 30% of the population. Of
those, the really scary crazy ones are a significant subfraction. But
a potentially very dangerous portion.

If you wanted to visit here, I'd easily drive you to a few huge places
where they have their own special "schools" and fenced homes areas and
I'm pretty sure you'd leave here uncontrollably shaking and preparing
yourself for a coming Armageddon.

It's enough serious that it cannot be ignored as an influence and it
really needs to be nipped, somehow.

Jon

Oh relax. The USA has always had a healthy share of loonies,
Theosiphists and nudists and communists and hippie communes and
golfers and gun nuts. Do you propose to "nip" people who don't vote to
your liking?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:06:04 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that?

If it was true I would have a problem with it. It's simply not true though.
Do you really believe that nonsense ?

Graham

Sometimes I don't think Europeans understand the religious atmosphere
here in the US and probably no imagination for the extreme reaches of
it or how it actually influences politics here. I have a hard time,
too, so here is a page that paints one of the extreme but important
influences:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/105122/66

In the latter part of it you will see how "thinking" is blocked and
dismantled.

Imagine living in the middle of this. I do.

It's insane. It's gobbledegook.

I can't even relate to this. It's like a bad dream.

No it's not. It's diversity, pluralism, and democracy. We have a
Constitution and courts to enforce the rules of the game, and then we
play it.

It's still quite mad.

Matter of opinion. I mostly enjoy it.

John

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:

and what part did the UK play in this? was it something
to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing
on our shores?

Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an
English town?

Graham

we were just being nice to you, so that we could make our big
move!

Yeah, New York, Washington, New Jersey, New Bedford, Salisbury,
Richmond,
Rockingham, Southport, Fairfax, York, Lancaster, Newark, Hempstead,
Southampton, Bristol, Hartford, Warwick, Worcester (etc) weren't
enough.
You
had to name Boston "Boston" as well...

St Albans even !

Must have been scraping the barrel there....

That's where I live you see.

[Shudder]

Poor you.

It's a lot better than most of the towns round here. It's quite nice in fact.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:53:54 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:tt66j2l70r5hknfprjg46gl64tdmv70h8t@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:09:39 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:26:55 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

JoeBloe wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

More 'Christian' propaganda you willingly lapped up ?

You're an idiot. Now that you have been pegged, and proven to be
a
US hater, you try to switch it to Christian hater.

I respect ppl's right to practice religion. I'm offended by any
religion
that inspires ignorance though lies whether that be Christian, Moslem
or
other.

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that?

If it was true I would have a problem with it. It's simply not true
though.
Do you really believe that nonsense ?

Graham

Sometimes I don't think Europeans understand the religious atmosphere
here in the US and probably no imagination for the extreme reaches of
it or how it actually influences politics here. I have a hard time,
too, so here is a page that paints one of the extreme but important
influences:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/105122/66

In the latter part of it you will see how "thinking" is blocked and
dismantled.

Imagine living in the middle of this. I do.

Jon

Oh, my. The Europeans _do_ have this in their midst:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061014/sc_afp/polandeducationsciencereligion_061014145504


Quite scary really. Even in the UK, BBC polls show almost a third people
have doubts about evolution and around a quarter think creationism is
correct. Shocking really. When I am made God, and all religion is banned,
these nut cases will be forced into the ocean.

On a radio program this morning, the subject being gender roles and
specifically transgender issues, a couple of biologists agreed that
Darwin's description of sex roles was totally wrong.

And in a book I'm reading about string theory, it seems out that there
are about 10^500 different possible universes, and as few as one may
support life, so some theorists are invoking Intelligent Design to
explain why the particular constants were chosen which allow us to
exist.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:45:22 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Using force to make other nations act in the way America wants them to is,
and should always be, unacceptable. It doesn't matter if America has their
(other nation) best interests at heart.

That is the heart of the issue. If Idi Amin or Pol Pot decides to kill
a few million of "their own" citizens, do they have the soverign right
to do so? Is there any such thing as universal human rights? Does the
government of China "own" Tibet or Taiwan? Do we stand aside from
genocides and starvation because intervention is, for some reason,
"unacceptable"?

So you'd support a war on Zimbabwe ?

If there are universal human rights, and the UN or some other
broad-based coalition believes in them, it seems to me that we cannot
avoid intervention when a madman decides to starve a few million of
his own population. If there are no human rights, then only power
matters, so quit whining about the USA doing whatever it can.

You put the UN and the USA in the same context above. Why was that ?

Please take this issue seriously and tell me what you think. I haven't
entirely resolved this myself, but I don't see that Kim has the right
to rule Korea as a god and kill millions,

I don't either.

and have a voting seat on
the UN to legitimize him as "head of state." I think *the world*
shouldn't allow this sort of horror.

He is de-factor Head of State. Would you deny N Korea a seat at the UN ?

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:06:58 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egt5lk$8u0_003@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <b972j2hg5vph0kft82futt7v3sd8r5penb@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:43:04 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. You've had to
work hard to
get to that position.

From a eurocentric point of view, maybe so. But India and China and
Japan and Africa don't count, apparently.

Nor the eastern countries of Europe.

While I don't agree with the rest of the world loathes the US argument, it
is undeniable that most countries in the world have a low opinion of
"America" (as an entity) and it's actions on the world stage.

So all those people are emigrating here accidentally, based on some
misunderstanding about geography?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:10:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Evangelicals in the US account for some 30% of the population. Of
those, the really scary crazy ones are a significant subfraction. But
a potentially very dangerous portion.

If you wanted to visit here, I'd easily drive you to a few huge places
where they have their own special "schools" and fenced homes areas and
I'm pretty sure you'd leave here uncontrollably shaking and preparing
yourself for a coming Armageddon.

It's enough serious that it cannot be ignored as an influence and it
really needs to be nipped, somehow.

Jon


Oh relax. The USA has always had a healthy share of loonies,
Theosiphists and nudists and communists and hippie communes and
golfers and gun nuts. Do you propose to "nip" people who don't vote to
your liking?

Those don't account for 30% of the population who can be persuaded to vote
en-bloc though.

Graham